Friday, November 16, 2012

Caption It...

Did anyone else hear Glenn Beck talking about Obama & Christie? That Republicans shouldn't blame Christie because the White House had secretly developed "Bacon Butter Cologne" and put it all over Obama before he got out of Air Force One. OMG, second time Glenn had me laughing in the car like the old school Howard Stern days... When he said all seriously, "In the words of Chris Christie..........Are you gonna eat that." lol

I have always admired Christie's frankness and ire for the unions, but if you search my site you'll see I've written about him having strong RINO tendencies on more than one occasion. First with climate change and then with endorsing Romney from the get go (to name a few).

Lets go over the evidence for human caused global warming:1) CO2 is a green house gas.2) Human activities result in CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere that would otherwise remain in solid or liquid form.3) Green house gasses in the atmosphere cause the earth to retain energy resulting in a warmer atmosphere.4) A warmer atmosphere will have negative consequences for human life.

NPR for truth and science? No way. Monthly severe weather? It hasn't happened. Sandy was nowhere near the size of the 1938 Noreaster or many earlier hurricanes that hit New York and New Jersey. It is not evidence for anything, let alone climate change.

CO2 is a naturally occurring substance whether in a solid, liquid or a gaseous state. The levels of each have varied widely over billions of years and the earth always compensates. There has been no increase in global temperatures for the past 16 years, so after all the global warming hysteria, we are left with exactly nothing in the way of evidence. I understand that a great many egos are on the line, but the continued dogmatic belief, absent of evidence, falls under the category of faith, not science.

Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. 6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.

All from cited sources at the above link. I think your climate predictions are about as good as your election.

Nate:Apparently the world muddled through the three or four billion years prior to 650,000 years ago.Water vapor has a greater effect than carbon dioxide does.I don't think that we are as warm as it was in Roman times or during the medieval warming period.

Global warming loons, there is no end to their fear along with their compassion for something to worry about. Its an addiction to them. You all should be more worried about the Boogie Man getting you.... BOOO! Ha Ha! Idiots.

BBC a known Global Warming supporter KNEW THEY USED DISTORTED AND FIXED STATISTICS and continued to do so until 7 million letters were sent to them. CAN't BELIEVE THE LEFT on ANYTHING! http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/alexsingleton/9353067/bbc-admits-it-knew-about-false-statistics-but-carried-on-using-them/

""Check out the 20th century temperature record, and you will find that its up and down pattern does not follow the industrial revolution’s upward march of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the supposed central culprit for man caused global warming (and has been much, much higher in the past). It follows instead the up and down pattern of naturally caused climate cycles.""

You Global Warming supporters have LIED with the facts and when it was exposed that you distorted the FACTS Gore crawled back into his multimillion dollar mansion and for once kept his idiot mouth shut.

I give you climate.nasa.gov, and you give me the dailymail. The fossil fuel industry, much like the tobacco industry before them, has done an excellent job of manufacturing a controversy and getting useful idiots like yourself to support their agenda.

My favorite part of this article is where they call Georgia Tech prestigious. GT isn't a bad school, but it isn't tier 1 academically. The bias and agenda is blatant.

How on earth do you trust NASA? You don't think a government agency, dependent on government funds doesn't have an agenda to promote whatever funnels more money its way? Data is data. NASA says nothing to refute Georgia Tech's data, and I don't think Georgia Tech has any particular agenda, so at the very least you have to take it into consideration. But of course you don't because you are a believer not a rationalist.